The judgment establishes that for an offence under Section 3(1)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, wrongful dispossession or interference with the enjoyment of rights of a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe over the land is necessary.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30th of November, 1994, passed in Special Criminal Case No. 320/1991 by the Special Judge under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Raipur. By the impugned judgment, the appellants have been convicted under Section 3 (l) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Special Act') and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- with default sentence of S.I. for 3 months.

2. The facts briefly stated are as under :

Surjabai (PW-1) is mother of Dongar Singh Dhruv (PW-3). They belong to Gond tribe. Their ancestral property (agricultural land) total 8 khasra nos., area 1.857 hectares is situated in village Sakra, P.C.No.460, Tehsil Mahasamund, the then district Raipur. On 11.4.1991, Dongar Singh Dhruv made a written report (Ex.P/5) to Special Harijan Thana, Raipur. He made allegations that accused Vishnu Manohar Dubey, the ex-Malgujar, with the help of accused Shamshuddin, has sold different portions of his land to the appellants and some other villagers and the possession has also been handed over to them. Some times in the year 1990, he found that the possession was taken by the appellants and they had raised certain construction over the land. When he met accused Vishn Manohar Dubey and co-accused Shamshuddin, Vishnu Manohar Dubey told him that the disputed land was a portion of government land and he had allotted the above portions of the land to the appellants and he is responsible for all this. Accused Vishnu Manohar Dubey was ex village Sarpanch, but at the time of giving possession to the appellants, he was not holding any post in the Panchayat, therefore, suitable action should be taken against the accused persons. The matter was taken up for investigation; the lands belonging to the complainant were demarcated; map was prepared; khasra was taken and it was found in the investigation that the appellants were holding the possession of different portions of land, belonging to the complainant, therefore, an offence under Section 3 (1) (v) of the Special Act was registered vide First Information Report (Ex.P/6) and charge sheet was filed. The accused persons, including the appellants were prosecuted under Section 3 (1) (v) of the Special Act for wrongfully dispossessing the complainant in the year 1990.

3. The learned Special Judge held that on the evidence available on record, no offence was made out against Vishnu Manohar Dubey (accused No.5) and Shamshhuddin (accused No.6), therefore, these two accused persons were acquitted. However, the 4 appellants (accused 1 to 4) were convicted under Section 3 (1) (v) of the Special Act.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants argued that there is no evidence of wrongful dispossession; the respective plots were handed over to the appellants by the ex-Malgujar and Sarpanch of the village and for that certain payments were made to the father of the complainant, who was the owner of the property, therefore, the possession of the appellants on respective portions of the disputed land was bonafide, and thus, an offence under Section 3 (1) (v) or any other Section of the Special Act would not be made out.

5. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Special Court.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the Special Case.

7. Surjabai (PW-1) is the widow of Basu Singh. She deposed that they belong to Gond community. Their agricultural land is situated in village Sakra. Her husband was holding possession of the agricultural land. The accused persons started constructing houses over the portions of their agricultural land. They started construction last year. She denied in the cross-examination that her husband had received advances for selling